G.R. No.
L-19778 September 30, 1964 work was not the direct consequence of the company's unfair labor
CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION (PTUC),
petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and CROMWELL COMMERCIAL CO.,
INC., respondents.
FACTS
On July 10, 1956, Cromwell Commercial Co. and the Cromwell Commercial
Employees and Laborers Union (PTUC) signed a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA). However, it appears that, contrary to the signed CBA, the
company deviates from the CBA for several reasons.
The company's failure to carry out its part of the agreement became a
source of complaint among the employees. The relation between the
company and the union steadily deteriorated due to the dismissal of the
leaders of the shipping department-employees and the reduced all
salesmen's salaries, discontinued helper's allowance and, in the case of
provincial salesmen, the discontinued the payment of any per diems.
The union struck and picketed the premises of the company. In a conference
called by the Department of Labor, the strikers offered to return to work
provided the company observed the provisions of the bargaining contract.
On September 19, 1957 this case was filed in the Court of Industrial
Relations, charging the company, together with its President and Vice
President, with unfair labor practice. Based on the trial courts order,
leaders of the shipping department are reinstated with halfback pay but the
striking employees are reinstated without backwages.
ISSUE
Whether or not it is fair to deny backwages to the strikers after finding that
the strike declared by them was legal because it was provoked by unfair
labor practices of the company
HELD
YES. The employees struck as a voluntary act of protest against what they
considered unfair labor practices of the company. The stoppage of their
practice. Hence their economic loss should not be shifted to the employer.
Indeed, it is said that striking employees are entitled to reinstatement
whether or not the strike was the consequence of the employer's unfair
labor practice, unless, where the strike was not due to any unfair labor
practice, the employer has hired others to take the place of the strikers and
has promised them continued employment.
While it is true that the strikers in this case offered to return to work, the
Court find that their offer was conditional. Their offer was predicated on the
company's observance of the provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement the very bone of contention between the parties by reason of
which the union walked out. To be effective so as to entitle the strikers to
backpay, the offer must have been unconditional. The strikers must have
offered to return to work under the same conditions under which they just
before their strike so that the company's refusal would have placed on the
blame for their economic loss. But that is not the case here. Indeed the offer
of the company to accept the striker under the conditions obtaining before
the strike without prejudice of course to taking up the grievances of the
strike can be considered in its favor in denying back wages to the strikers.
Nor may it be said that the strikers could not have offered to return to work
because the company dismissed them upon their failure to return to work
on March 14, 1957. For the notice given by the company was merely a
"tactical" threat designed to break the strike and not really to discharge the
striking employees.
WHEREFORE, the decision and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations
appealed from are hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.